4 ms·

Did you read the article? At the very minimum you can prove the “four denials” or “refutal” as being a lie. While it might seem minor to a lay person, a judge,

Did you read the article? At the very minimum you can prove the “four denials” or “refutal” as being a lie. While it might seem minor to a lay person, a judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice should understand there’s a stark legal difference between “denying/refuting something happened” vs “I don’t recall that happening”. And that’s just one thing you can prove, the article goes at length with good sourcing to prove more.

jki275 8y ago
I read it all. You can't prove any of that as false. The article is a biased hit piece making allegations that are not provable. In fact, it makes assertions that have been refuted already by other people who were in K's circle of friends and some who were not (devil's triangle). BTW, I'm not asserting that it is impossible that reasonable people might listen to his testimony and think he was lying. Calling something "proof" is a very different thing.
- scrollaway 8y ago
  I'm not the person you're replying to but I find it terribly sad to see how much you folks (Americans) lowered the bar to accepting someone into the supreme court. Partisanship is ok. Off-the-handle emotional responses are ok. Continuous strings of allegations "no big deal cause we don't have a cryptographically-signed videotape of it". That 2400 law professors [0], groups like Human Rights Watch [1], the National Council of Churches [2], or even (republican) Justice Stevens himself[3] vehemently oppose his nominations, that raises no alarm bells. I don't get it. I'm pretty sure nearly everyone shrugging this stuff off had even heard of Kavanaugh before, and yet HE is the one who must be appointed to this lifetime position of Supreme Court Judge. HE is the one who meets the standards to reside over the country's most important cases. What is it about this guy you like so much? Could it be that your party is telling you "it's all a democrat ploy" and you're just... following orders? I don't even know why republican voters care this much. There's far more capable and better-suited republican candidates available if Kavanaugh is rejected. Or do you think this sorry excuse of a judge is what "best of the best" looks like? [0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavan... [1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/05/human-rights-watch-opposes-nomination-brett-kavanaugh-us-supreme-court https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/05/human-rights-watch-oppos... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2018/10/04/national-council-churches-makes-rare-statement-oppose-kavanaugh/?utm_term=.87d9e8f89eee https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2018/10/04/national-... [3] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/supreme-court-justice-john-paul-stevens-kavanaugh/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/supreme-court-ju...
  - HBlix 8y ago
    It comes down to this: they believe that he’ll swing the court in favor of their chosen policies, be it restricting abortion or whatever else. If Bill Cosby or Ted Bundy were in a position to do that, they’d defend them too. It’s not about good faith arguments, it’s 100% about the end result, and the ends justifying the means.
    - scrollaway 8y ago
      But again... there isn't a shortage of republican-leaning judges who are far more fit to be a Supreme Court Justice. My reading is that the GOP is making a big deal out of this because it looks really bad for them if Kavanaugh gets voted off. And furthermore, they run the risk of not being able to confirm a republican judge after the midterms (and we're not even sort of pretending the court is nonpartisan anymore...)
      - HBlix 8y ago
        I see what you mean, but as you say their midterm elections are coming up, and no one knows if the Republicans will still have the necessary votes after. If Kavanaugh doesn’t get through, their chance to force someone like him onto the court may go with him. Beyond that I don’t think you can underestimate just how little a lot of senators care about what Kavanaugh did to women in his youth. Chuck Grassley, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham... they seem like people for whom conscience is just a formality. Mostly they want to be re-elected, and they want to feed their shrinking base lots of red meat to inspire a bigger turnout. As I said, if Ted Bundy on the court could do that for them, they’d try to make it happen.
  - jki275 8y ago
    No one actually cares what any of those organizations say. Literally no one, not republican or democrat, could care any less what they say unless they happen to align with their political ideology. Second, the notion of "republican candidates" or "republican justices" (Stevens was not a conservative, or right leaning, he simply happened to be appointed by a republican president) as justices on the supreme court shows an absolute misunderstanding of the purpose of the institution. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the court betrayed by this comment. The court is supposed to be non-partisan and not beholden to politicians. The left has cranked up the smear machine in response to every Constitutionalist judge nominated to the court since (and including) Clarence Thomas -- it only appears "republican" or "democrat" because republican presidents appoint judges more often who respect the Constitution as it was written and democrat presidents appoint judges more often who believe the Constitution should be rewritten through the misuse of the judiciary. Kavanaugh will be a party line vote, and a lot of it will be reaction to the left wing of the senate's behavior in the judiciary committee. note that the right does not, in general, do this -- Kagen, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg were all significant majority votes in spite of their political ideology differences. Elections have consequences (that's a quote from President Obama), and Constitutionalist judges are being nominated. The smear machinery is going to be brought against any Constitutionalist judge, no matter who it is, because of the political controversy over Roe v. Wade, which is in reality what this entire confirmation circus at this point is about. At this point the US Senate has in essence abdicated its role in advice and consent to the President and turned confirmations into a political farce -- that's not how it's supposed to be, no matter what political ideology one may hold.

jki275 8y ago

I read it all. You can't prove any of that as false. The article is a biased hit piece making allegations that are not provable. In fact, it makes assertions that have been refuted already by other people who were in K's circle of friends and some who were not (devil's triangle). BTW, I'm not asserting that it is impossible that reasonable people might listen to his testimony and think he was lying. Calling something "proof" is a very different thing.

scrollaway 8y ago
I'm not the person you're replying to but I find it terribly sad to see how much you folks (Americans) lowered the bar to accepting someone into the supreme court. Partisanship is ok. Off-the-handle emotional responses are ok. Continuous strings of allegations "no big deal cause we don't have a cryptographically-signed videotape of it". That 2400 law professors [0], groups like Human Rights Watch [1], the National Council of Churches [2], or even (republican) Justice Stevens himself[3] vehemently oppose his nominations, that raises no alarm bells. I don't get it. I'm pretty sure nearly everyone shrugging this stuff off had even heard of Kavanaugh before, and yet HE is the one who must be appointed to this lifetime position of Supreme Court Judge. HE is the one who meets the standards to reside over the country's most important cases. What is it about this guy you like so much? Could it be that your party is telling you "it's all a democrat ploy" and you're just... following orders? I don't even know why republican voters care this much. There's far more capable and better-suited republican candidates available if Kavanaugh is rejected. Or do you think this sorry excuse of a judge is what "best of the best" looks like? [0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavan... [1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/05/human-rights-watch-opposes-nomination-brett-kavanaugh-us-supreme-court https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/05/human-rights-watch-oppos... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2018/10/04/national-council-churches-makes-rare-statement-oppose-kavanaugh/?utm_term=.87d9e8f89eee https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2018/10/04/national-... [3] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/supreme-court-justice-john-paul-stevens-kavanaugh/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/supreme-court-ju...
- HBlix 8y ago
  It comes down to this: they believe that he’ll swing the court in favor of their chosen policies, be it restricting abortion or whatever else. If Bill Cosby or Ted Bundy were in a position to do that, they’d defend them too. It’s not about good faith arguments, it’s 100% about the end result, and the ends justifying the means.
  - scrollaway 8y ago
    But again... there isn't a shortage of republican-leaning judges who are far more fit to be a Supreme Court Justice. My reading is that the GOP is making a big deal out of this because it looks really bad for them if Kavanaugh gets voted off. And furthermore, they run the risk of not being able to confirm a republican judge after the midterms (and we're not even sort of pretending the court is nonpartisan anymore...)
    - HBlix 8y ago
      I see what you mean, but as you say their midterm elections are coming up, and no one knows if the Republicans will still have the necessary votes after. If Kavanaugh doesn’t get through, their chance to force someone like him onto the court may go with him. Beyond that I don’t think you can underestimate just how little a lot of senators care about what Kavanaugh did to women in his youth. Chuck Grassley, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham... they seem like people for whom conscience is just a formality. Mostly they want to be re-elected, and they want to feed their shrinking base lots of red meat to inspire a bigger turnout. As I said, if Ted Bundy on the court could do that for them, they’d try to make it happen.
- jki275 8y ago
  No one actually cares what any of those organizations say. Literally no one, not republican or democrat, could care any less what they say unless they happen to align with their political ideology. Second, the notion of "republican candidates" or "republican justices" (Stevens was not a conservative, or right leaning, he simply happened to be appointed by a republican president) as justices on the supreme court shows an absolute misunderstanding of the purpose of the institution. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the court betrayed by this comment. The court is supposed to be non-partisan and not beholden to politicians. The left has cranked up the smear machine in response to every Constitutionalist judge nominated to the court since (and including) Clarence Thomas -- it only appears "republican" or "democrat" because republican presidents appoint judges more often who respect the Constitution as it was written and democrat presidents appoint judges more often who believe the Constitution should be rewritten through the misuse of the judiciary. Kavanaugh will be a party line vote, and a lot of it will be reaction to the left wing of the senate's behavior in the judiciary committee. note that the right does not, in general, do this -- Kagen, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg were all significant majority votes in spite of their political ideology differences. Elections have consequences (that's a quote from President Obama), and Constitutionalist judges are being nominated. The smear machinery is going to be brought against any Constitutionalist judge, no matter who it is, because of the political controversy over Roe v. Wade, which is in reality what this entire confirmation circus at this point is about. At this point the US Senate has in essence abdicated its role in advice and consent to the President and turned confirmations into a political farce -- that's not how it's supposed to be, no matter what political ideology one may hold.